Planned work evaluation method for improving power supply reliability

Abstract

The invention discloses a planned work evaluation method for improving power supply reliability, and relates to the technical field of calculation management. The method comprises the following steps: S1, obtaining an equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score before power failure operation, S2, obtaining a construction process score, S3, obtaining an operation quality score after operation, and S4, carrying out weighted average on the equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score, the construction process score and the operation quality score to obtain an operation overall quality score; the overall operation quality score is obtained by performing weighted average on the equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score, the construction process score and the operation quality score, and then the overall operation quality is evaluated, so that the power distribution network equipment maintenance plan is more reasonable, the working efficiency of the power distribution network equipment maintenance plan is higher, and the maintenance cost is reduced. The equipment operation performance and the power supply reliability are tracked and evaluated for a long time, and the actual effect of maintenance work is evaluated more comprehensively and accurately.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of computing management technology, and in particular to a method for evaluating planned work operations for improving power supply reliability. Background Art

[0002] A stable power supply is the basic guarantee for social and economic development. Power outages for equipment maintenance and upgrades can timely discover and resolve potential problems, but repeated power outages and unnecessary operation and maintenance work should be avoided. Planned power outage approval must ensure that the power supply reliability can be effectively improved after the operation. It is crucial to evaluate the necessity and rationality of power grid equipment maintenance plans based on reliability.

[0003] The current power grid maintenance process lacks transparency. First, there are no quantitative standards for the necessity of implementing planned maintenance work, and excessive reliance on expert experience fails to truly reflect the actual maintenance needs of equipment. Second, construction quality varies: quality issues during construction are often difficult to detect and correct in a timely manner. Third, the post-operation quality evaluation system is imperfect, and the evaluation results are not fully applied in subsequent maintenance plan formulation and equipment operation and maintenance strategy optimization. In addition, operation quality evaluation is mostly concentrated in the short period after the maintenance is completed, and there is insufficient follow-up evaluation of the long-term operating performance of equipment and power supply reliability. This is not conducive to the continuous improvement of the overall level of power grid equipment maintenance planning.

[0004] The application, published as CN115310851A, is titled "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for Power Equipment Overhaul Investment Plans." It addresses the difficulty in comprehensively evaluating and prioritizing power equipment overhaul investment projects. This method, which only considers pre-operation necessity assessments, lacks sufficient follow-up evaluation of the equipment's long-term operating performance and power supply reliability.

[0005] The application, published as CN115239275A, is titled "A Digital Operation System and Method for Fine-Grade Evaluation of Substation Equipment." Based on the calculation results of the fine-grade equipment and the subsequent grade standards for treatment, it provides closed-loop treatment for equipment at different grades. However, because it only considers the necessity assessment before operation, it lacks the ability to track and evaluate the long-term performance of the equipment and power supply reliability.

[0006] Therefore, due to the unreasonable maintenance plan of distribution network equipment, the efficiency of the maintenance plan of distribution network equipment is low, and the insufficient tracking and evaluation of the long-term operating performance and power supply reliability of the equipment has become a technical problem that needs to be solved urgently. Summary of the Invention

[0007] The present invention provides a method for evaluating planned work operations for improving power supply reliability, which solves the technical problems of low efficiency of distribution network equipment maintenance planning and insufficient tracking and evaluation of equipment long-term operating performance and power supply reliability due to unreasonable distribution network equipment maintenance planning.

[0008] In order to solve the above technical problems, the technical solutions adopted by the present invention are as follows:

[0009] A method for evaluating planned work operations for improving power supply reliability comprises the following steps: Step S1: obtaining a comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation. m , when the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity is I m If the score is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold, the maintenance plan is arranged first; Step S2: Obtain the construction process score d m , when the construction process score d m If the value is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold of the construction process, the construction process during the power outage operation is qualified; Step S3: Obtain the post-operation operation quality score e m , when the homework quality score e m is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold of operation quality, and the operation quality meets the expected goal; Step S4: The comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance I m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating m The weighted average is used to obtain the overall quality score Q of the assignment. m , when the overall quality score of the job is Q m If the value is greater than or equal to the excellent threshold for overall job quality, the overall job quality is excellent.

[0010] A further technical solution is: in step S1, when the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity I m If the power level is below the equipment maintenance threshold, the planned work content will be readjusted, including the analysis of the rationality of the power outage plan balance and the application review of power transfer and power protection measures.

[0011] A further technical solution is that: in step S2, the qualified threshold of the construction process is 0.7, when 0.7≤d m ≤1, the construction process is qualified during power outage operation; when 0.5≤d m <0.7, the responsible department shall immediately carry out self-inspection of the maintenance plan; when 0.3≤d m <0.5, the relevant professional departments need to participate in the spot check during the construction process; when d m <0.3, the responsible leader needs to personally participate in the supervision work.

[0012] A further technical solution is that: in step S3, the threshold value of the qualified operation quality is 0.7, when 0.7≤e m ≤1, the work quality meets the expected goal; when 0.5≤e m <0.7, the responsible unit must immediately conduct self-inspection; when 0.3≤e m<0.5, the competent department needs to intervene to conduct spot checks on construction quality; when e m <0.3, the responsible leader needs to personally participate in strengthening construction quality control and quality inspection and acceptance of equipment after commissioning.

[0013] A further technical solution is that: in step S4, the threshold value of the overall quality of the operation is 0.9, when Q m ≥0.9, the overall quality of the work is excellent; when 0.8≤Q m <0.9, the overall quality of the work is good; when 0.6≤Q m <0.8, the overall quality of the operation is qualified; when Q m <0.6, the overall quality of the work is unqualified.

[0014] A further technical solution is that: in step S1, the equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score I m According to formula (1),

[0015] I m =w1k y +w2k d +w3k l +w4k c +w5k f +w6k r +w7C S +w8G S +w9(1-R c )-w 10 ΔR Formula (1)

[0016] In formula (1), I m is the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, w1 is the weight of the years of operation, k y is the operation period, w2 is the weight of family defect risk, k d is the risk of familial defects, w3 is the weight of severe overload, k l is a heavy overload condition, w4 is the weight of whether the fault can be eliminated under power, k c is whether the fault can be eliminated under power, w5 is the weight of the fault frequency rate, k f is the fault frequency rate, w6 is the weight of the fault impact range, k r is the fault impact range, w7 is the weight of the system power outage time impact rate, C S is the system outage time impact rate, w8 is the weight of the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, G S is the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, w9 is the weight of the equipment remaining capacity ratio, R c is the ratio of remaining capacity of the equipment, w 10is the weight of the maintenance condition based on the reliability rate, ΔR is the maintenance condition based on the reliability rate; w1~w 10 is the weight of each factor before the power outage operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the importance of each factor on the power supply reliability of the equipment, and

[0017] A further technical solution is that: in step S2, the construction process score d m According to formula (2),

[0018]

[0019] In formula (2), d m Score the construction process in the job, w 11 is the weight of the proportion of defect elimination, is the proportion of defect elimination, w 12 is the weight of the equipment replacement ratio, is the equipment replacement ratio, w 13 is the weight of construction efficiency, is the construction efficiency, w 14 is the weight of the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, O8 is the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, w 15 is the weight of the plan execution deviation rate, D p is the plan execution deviation rate; w 11 ~w 15 is the weight of each factor in the construction process, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned construction work, and

[0020] A further technical solution is that in step S3, the work quality score e m According to formula (3),

[0021]

[0022] In formula (3), e m Score the quality of the homework after the assignment, w 16 is the weight of the fault improvement rate, is the failure improvement rate, w 17 is the weight of the first failure interval, is the first failure interval length, w 18 is the weight of the improvement rate of the mean time between failures, is the improvement rate of mean time between failures, w 19 is the weight of the power outage time reduction rate, is the power outage time reduction rate, w 20 is the weight of the power outage reduction rate, is the power outage reduction rate, w 21 Applying benefit weights for power outages, For power outage application benefits, w 16 ~w 21 is the weight of each factor after the operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned work construction, and

[0023] A further technical solution is that: in step S4, the overall quality score of the job is calculated according to formula (4),

[0024] Q m =(I m +d m +e m ) / 3 Formula (4)

[0025] In formula (4), Q m Rate the overall quality of the assignment, I m Comprehensive score for the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, d m Score the construction process during the operation, e m Grade the quality of the assignment after the assignment.

[0026] A further technical solution is that: in step S1, the equipment maintenance threshold is 0.7.

[0027] The beneficial effects of adopting the above technical solution are:

[0028] First, a method for evaluating planned work operations for improving power supply reliability includes the following steps: Step S1: Obtaining a comprehensive score for the necessity of equipment maintenance before a power outage operation. When the comprehensive score is greater than or equal to a threshold for equipment maintenance, the maintenance plan is prioritized; Step S2: Obtaining a construction process score. When the score is greater than or equal to a qualified construction process threshold, the construction process during the power outage operation is qualified; Step S3: Obtaining a post-operation quality score. When the score is greater than or equal to a qualified construction process threshold, the operation quality meets the expected goals; Step S4: Taking a weighted average of the comprehensive score for equipment maintenance necessity, the construction process score, and the operation quality score, obtaining an overall operation quality score. When the overall operation quality score is greater than or equal to a threshold for excellent overall operation quality, the overall operation quality is excellent. Existing technical solutions only consider pre-operation necessity evaluation and have never considered integrating planned maintenance construction process evaluation. The technical solution of step S4 of this application is more reasonable than the existing technical solution. The comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity, the construction process score and the operation quality score are weighted averaged to obtain the overall operation quality score, and then the overall operation quality is evaluated, so that the distribution network equipment maintenance plan is more reasonable and the distribution network equipment maintenance plan is more efficient. The equipment operating performance and power supply reliability are tracked and evaluated in the long term, and the actual effect of the maintenance work is evaluated more comprehensively and accurately.

[0029] Second, in step S1, the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance is calculated according to formula (1). By constructing ten secondary indicators, namely, years of operation, risk of family defects, heavy overload conditions, ability to eliminate faults under power, fault frequency, fault impact range, system power outage time impact rate, power supply gap ratio during maintenance, equipment remaining capacity ratio, and maintenance conditions based on reliability, a primary indicator for pre-operation necessity evaluation is formed. The necessity evaluation before power outage operation is conducted by comprehensively considering the ten quantitative secondary indicators, which makes the evaluation more comprehensive and reasonable.

[0030] Third, in step S2, the construction process score is calculated according to formula (2). By constructing five secondary indicators, namely the proportion of defect elimination, the proportion of equipment replacement, the construction efficiency, the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, and the plan execution deviation rate, a primary indicator for the evaluation of the planned maintenance construction process is formed, which comprehensively reflects the quality, progress, and efficiency of the maintenance work, and evaluates whether the construction plan can be completed on time, making the evaluation more comprehensive, reasonable, and efficient.

[0031] Fourth, in step S3, the operation quality score is calculated according to formula (3). By constructing six secondary indicators, namely, fault improvement rate, first fault interval duration, average fault interval duration improvement rate, power outage time reduction rate, power outage number reduction rate, and power outage application benefit, a primary indicator for post-operation operation quality evaluation is formed. The operation quality evaluation is conducted on the improvement of power supply reliability, and the long-term tracking evaluation of equipment operating performance and power supply reliability is conducted to comprehensively and accurately evaluate the actual effect of the maintenance work.

[0032] Please refer to the detailed description of the specific implementation method. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0033] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0034] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present application to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present application, not all of the embodiments. The following description of at least one exemplary embodiment is actually only illustrative and is in no way intended to limit the present application and its application or use. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0035] In the following description, many specific details are set forth to facilitate a full understanding of the present application. However, the present application may also be implemented in other ways different from those described herein. Those skilled in the art may make similar generalizations without violating the connotation of the present application. Therefore, the present application is not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0036] Example 1:

[0037] like Figure 1 As shown, the present invention discloses a method for evaluating a planned work operation for improving power supply reliability, comprising the following steps:

[0038] Step S1: Necessity evaluation before operation to obtain the comprehensive score I of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation m , when the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation is I m If the threshold for equipment maintenance before power outage operation is lower than the threshold, the planned work content shall be readjusted, including the analysis of the rationality of the balance of power outage plan and the application review of power transfer and power protection measures; when the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation is I m If the value is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold before power outage operation, it is determined that the equipment maintenance necessity is high and the maintenance plan should be arranged first. The details are as follows.

[0039] Phase 1: Pre-operation necessity assessment.

[0040] Refer to Table 1. Before the power outage operation, ten secondary indicators are constructed, including years of operation, risk of family defects, heavy overload conditions, ability to eliminate faults under power, fault frequency, fault impact range, system power outage time impact rate, power supply gap ratio during maintenance, equipment remaining capacity ratio and maintenance conditions based on reliability, to form a first-level indicator for the necessity evaluation before the operation. The necessity evaluation before the power outage operation is carried out by comprehensively considering the ten quantitative second-level indicators.

[0041] Table 1: Correspondence table of fault power outage responsibility reasons

[0042]

[0043] Comprehensive score of necessity of equipment maintenance before operation I m :

[0044] I m =w1k y +w2k d +w3k l +w4k c +w5k f +w6k r +w7C S +w8G S +w9(1-R c )-w 10 ΔR Formula (1)

[0045] In formula (1), I m is the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, w1 is the weight of the years of operation, k y is the operation period, w2 is the weight of family defect risk, k d is the risk of familial defects, w3 is the weight of severe overload, k l is a heavy overload condition, w4 is the weight of whether the fault can be eliminated under power, k c is whether the fault can be eliminated under power, w5 is the weight of the fault frequency rate, k f is the fault frequency rate, w6 is the weight of the fault impact range, k r is the fault impact range, w7 is the weight of the system power outage time impact rate, C S is the system outage time impact rate, w8 is the weight of the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, G S is the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, w9 is the weight of the equipment remaining capacity ratio, R c is the ratio of remaining capacity of the equipment, w 10 is the weight of the maintenance condition based on the reliability, and ΔR is the maintenance condition based on the reliability. 10is the weight of each factor before the power outage operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the importance of each factor on the power supply reliability of the equipment, and When I m Below the equipment maintenance threshold before power outage operation, power outage plan balance rationality analysis, power transfer and power protection measures application review; when I m If the value is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold before power outage, it is determined that the equipment maintenance is necessary and the maintenance plan should be arranged first. For example, the equipment maintenance threshold before power outage is 0.7.

[0046] The technical parameters in formula (1) are further explained as follows.

[0047] Years in operation: Years in operation is an important indicator to measure the degree of equipment aging. As the time in operation increases, the components of the equipment gradually wear out, age, and their reliability decreases. Set the number of years in operation k y When the equipment operation period Y exceeds 70% of the equipment design life, k y The value is between 0.8 and 1; if it does not exceed 50%, k y The value is between 0.3 and 0.5, which reflects the degree of influence of different operation years on the necessity of maintenance. For example, if the design life of a certain equipment is 30 years, when it is in operation for 20 years, k y The value can be 0.85, indicating that the necessity of maintenance increases due to its long service life.

[0048] Familial defect risk: Familial defects refer to defects that are common in devices of the same model or batch. If a device has a familial defect, whether it is currently manifested or not, there is a potential risk. Establish a familial defect risk coefficient k d If the device has a family defect, k d The value is 0.8~1; if not, the value is 0.1~0.3. For example, a certain type of transformer has a family core multi-point grounding defect. For this type of transformer in operation, k d The value can be 0.9, which means that the necessity of maintenance is high due to family defects.

[0049] Heavy overload: Heavy overload will accelerate equipment aging and increase the probability of failure. By comparing the actual load rate L of the monitoring equipment with the rated load rate L0, the heavy overload coefficient k is calculated. l , k l =L / L0. When k l When it exceeds 1.2, it means that the equipment is in a heavy overload state for a long time, and the necessity of equipment maintenance increases.

[0050] Whether the fault can be eliminated under power supply: If the equipment defect can be eliminated under power supply, it can be handled without affecting the power supply reliability, which has a relatively small impact on the power supply reliability and the urgency of maintenance is relatively reduced; if the fault cannot be eliminated under power supply, power outage maintenance is required, which has a greater impact on the power supply reliability and the necessity of maintenance is increased. Set up the power supply elimination coefficient k c , when the fault can be eliminated under power, k c The value is 0.3~0.5; when the fault cannot be eliminated under power, k c The value ranges from 0.8 to 1.

[0051] Failure frequency rate: The calculation formula is: where N f is the number of equipment failures in a specific time period in the past. For example, if the specific time period is one year, T S is the total duration of the time period, and the unit of total duration can be converted into hours. f Exceeding the set threshold, for example, 3 failures per 1000 hours, indicates that the equipment is in a frequent failure state and the necessity of maintenance increases.

[0052] Fault impact range: The area S of the power outage caused by the fault out The area S of the normal power supply area of ​​the equipment total The ratio calculation is When k r If it is larger, for example, more than 0.2, it means that the fault has a wide impact and the necessity of equipment maintenance increases.

[0053] System outage time impact rate: Calculate the impact rate C of equipment power outage on system outage time S , the formula is: Where T out-s T is the system power outage time caused by equipment failure or maintenance. total-s is the total power outage time of the system during the statistical period. S If the ratio exceeds a certain value, such as 0.15, it means that the power outage of the equipment has a significant impact on the system power outage time, and maintenance needs to be carefully evaluated.

[0054] Power supply gap ratio during maintenance period G S : , Among them, P demand is the predicted power demand during the maintenance period, P supply It is the power supply after deducting the power supply capacity of the device. S If the power shortage ratio exceeds the allowable value, for example 0.05, the maintenance plan needs to be reassessed.

[0055] Ratio of remaining capacity of equipment: Among them C capacity is the existing capacity of the equipment, C demand-futureThe power demand that the equipment needs to carry for several years in the future is predicted, for example, 5 years. c If it is lower than the set value, such as 0.3, it means that the equipment needs to be overhauled to improve capacity or performance to meet future load requirements.

[0056] Maintenance conditions based on reliability: ΔR=R goal -R actual , where R goal is the target reliability value, R actual To remove the actual reliability value of planned power outages, a positive ΔR value indicates that the current power supply reliability of the power grid has not met the expected plan. If maintenance is carried out at this time, power outages and other factors may further reduce the power supply reliability. Priority should be given to taking measures to improve the current power supply reliability. If it is a negative value, it means that the current power supply reliability of the power grid is in good condition and maintenance work can be considered.

[0057] Comprehensive score of necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation I m When <0.7, the following work needs to be carried out with emphasis.

[0058] Conduct a thorough analysis of the rationality of the power outage plan balance: Thoroughly review each task in the power outage plan and examine whether the task schedule is overly concentrated in certain areas or time periods, resulting in excessive power supply pressure. Compare power demand across all areas and time periods to assess whether the power outage plan matches the actual load distribution. For example, if a large number of power outages are scheduled during peak power demand in a busy commercial area, and the load forecast coefficient for this area indicates a high load demand, the power outage plan needs to be readjusted, shifting some non-urgent tasks to off-peak hours to balance power demand with the power outage schedule and improve the rationality of the power outage plan.

[0059] Review of the application of power transfer and power protection measures: Examine the feasibility and safety of the power transfer plan. Evaluate whether the carrying capacity of the power transfer line can meet the load demand of the transferred area, and whether there are risks such as excessive voltage drop and line overheating during the power transfer process. For example, if a region plans to shut down for maintenance, consider switching through adjacent lines. At this time, it is necessary to calculate the current, voltage and other parameters of the adjacent lines after the power transfer to determine whether they are within the safe operating range. At the same time, review the power protection measures to check whether the configuration of the power protection equipment is reasonable, such as whether the power of the emergency generator can meet the power demand of important users, whether the power protection plan is complete, including whether the switching process, personnel responsibilities and other contents are clear. Through rigorous review of the application of power transfer and power protection measures, the impact of power outages on power supply reliability can be minimized.

[0060] Step S2: Evaluate the construction process during the power outage operation to obtain a construction process score d m , when the construction process score d m Satisfy the judgment condition, 0.7≤d m≤1, the construction process is qualified during power outage operation; 0.5≤d m <0.7, the responsible department needs to immediately carry out self-inspection of the maintenance plan; 0.3≤d m <0.5, relevant professional departments need to participate in the spot check during the construction process; d m <0.3, the supervisor needs to personally participate in the supervision work, as detailed below.

[0061] Phase 2: Evaluation of planned maintenance construction process.

[0062] Refer to Table 1. During the power outage operation, by constructing five secondary indicators, namely the proportion of fault elimination, the proportion of equipment replacement, construction efficiency, the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours and the plan execution deviation rate, a primary indicator for evaluating the planned maintenance construction process is formed, which comprehensively reflects the quality, progress and efficiency of the maintenance work and evaluates whether the construction plan can be completed on time.

[0063] Construction process score during operation m :

[0064]

[0065] In formula (2), d m Score the construction process in the job, w 11 is the weight of the proportion of defect elimination, is the proportion of defect elimination, w 12 is the weight of the equipment replacement ratio, is the equipment replacement ratio, w 13 is the weight of construction efficiency, is the construction efficiency, w 14 is the weight of the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, O8 is the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, w 15 is the weight of the plan execution deviation rate, D p is the plan execution deviation rate. 11 ~w 15 is the weight of each factor in the construction process, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned construction work, and The qualified threshold of the construction process is 0.7, when 0.7≤d m ≤1, the construction process is qualified during power outage operation; when 0.5≤d m <0.7, the responsible department shall immediately carry out self-inspection of the maintenance plan; when 0.3≤d m <0.5, the relevant professional departments need to participate in the spot check during the construction process; when d m <0.3, the responsible leader needs to personally participate in the supervision work.

[0066] The technical parameters in formula (2) are further explained as follows.

[0067] Percentage of defect elimination: where N planned N is the number of planned defect eliminations, actual The actual number of defect eliminations completed during the construction process reflects the quality of the maintenance work. A higher percentage of defect elimination indicates higher quality. Reducing the number of defects is directly related to equipment reliability and operational safety.

[0068] Equipment replacement ratio: where R replace is the number of replaced devices actually completed, R total The total number of line equipment and the number of equipment and components replaced during construction indicate the scope of equipment renewal and upgrade, reflecting the contribution of construction to the improvement of equipment performance.

[0069] Construction efficiency: The total number of hours actually spent on maintenance and construction, including T actual The total number of hours actually spent on maintenance and construction, T planned The two indicators are important indicators for measuring construction efficiency and can reflect the team collaboration and rationality of resource allocation.

[0070] Percentage of tasks exceeding 8 hours: s8 represents the number of daily single tasks exceeding eight hours during construction, and s represents the total number of single tasks. The percentage of tasks exceeding eight hours assesses construction workload and helps identify inappropriate team deployment or overly concentrated work processes. Optimize task allocation to avoid excessive concentration of work. Improve tools and technical support to reduce the duration of single tasks.

[0071] Plan execution deviation rate: Where T actual is the actual maintenance time, T planned is the planned maintenance time, N extra is the number of unplanned maintenance items, N planned is the number of planned maintenance items. p When it is lower than 0.1, it is considered that the maintenance plan is well executed. The plan execution deviation rate reflects the execution and management level of the construction plan.

[0072] When the construction process score during a power outage operation is low, it will be handled according to the following different levels.

[0073] Generally, 0.5≤d m<0.7: The responsible department must immediately conduct a self-review of the maintenance plan. Carefully review every aspect of the construction process, including personnel arrangements, material allocation, and operational procedures. Check for issues such as irrational planning, non-standard personnel operations, and untimely material delivery. For example, compare actual work duration with planned duration and analyze the reasons for overtime to determine if it's due to lack of skills or irrational task allocation. Also, check whether the number of defects eliminated meets expectations. If not, analyze whether the reasons are incomplete defect detection or excessive difficulty in resolving them. Through self-review, develop a detailed list of issues and formulate targeted improvement measures, clearly defining the responsible individuals and deadlines for rectification.

[0074] Worse case, 0.3≤d m <0.5: Relevant professional departments must participate in spot checks during the construction process. Professional departments should organize technical personnel to conduct in-depth inspections of the construction process at the construction site. They should focus on checking whether construction techniques meet standards, whether the construction progress is progressing as planned, and whether safety measures are fully implemented. For example, they should check whether installation procedures during equipment replacements comply with technical specifications and review construction records for any violations. Any issues identified should be promptly communicated with the construction team, and rectification notices should be issued, requiring immediate action. Furthermore, professional departments should assist the responsible departments in analyzing the root causes of the problems, provide technical support and guidance, and jointly develop rectification plans to ensure that the construction process meets requirements.

[0075] Especially in the worst case, d m <0.3: Supervisors must personally participate in supervision. Supervisors should regularly visit the construction site to oversee the entire construction process. Starting from the construction preparation phase, they should review the rationality of the construction plan and the availability of personnel and materials. During the construction process, they should closely monitor progress, quality, and safety, and promptly coordinate and resolve major construction issues. For example, if significant construction delays are discovered, supervisors should convene a special meeting with relevant personnel to analyze the causes, readjust the construction plan, and reallocate resources to ensure that construction can resume normal progress as soon as possible. Furthermore, supervisors should evaluate the work of responsible departments and relevant personnel, and hold those who perform poorly accountable to strengthen control over the construction process.

[0076] Step S3: Evaluate the quality of the work after the power outage to obtain the quality score of the work after the operation e m , when the homework quality score is e m Satisfy the condition, 0.7≤e m ≤1, the work quality meets the expected goal; 0.5≤e m <0.7, the responsible unit must immediately conduct self-inspection; 0.3≤e m <0.5, the competent department needs to intervene and conduct spot checks on construction quality; m<0.3, the responsible leader needs to personally participate in strengthening the construction quality control and quality inspection and acceptance of equipment after commissioning, as detailed below.

[0077] The third stage: post-assignment evaluation of the quality of the assignment.

[0078] Refer to Table 1. After the power outage operation, by constructing six secondary indicators, including fault improvement rate, first fault interval duration, average fault interval duration improvement rate, power outage time reduction rate, power outage number reduction rate and power outage application benefit, a primary indicator for post-operation operation quality evaluation is formed. The operation quality evaluation is conducted on the improvement of power supply reliability, and long-term tracking evaluation is conducted on equipment operating performance and power supply reliability, so as to comprehensively and accurately evaluate the actual effect of the maintenance work.

[0079] Post-assignment homework quality rating m :

[0080]

[0081] In formula (3), e m Score the quality of the homework after the assignment, w 16 is the weight of the fault improvement rate, is the failure improvement rate, w 17 is the weight of the first failure interval, is the first failure interval length, w 18 is the weight of the improvement rate of the mean time between failures, is the improvement rate of mean time between failures, w 19 is the weight of the power outage time reduction rate, is the power outage time reduction rate, w 20 is the weight of the power outage reduction rate, is the power outage reduction rate, w 21 Applying benefit weights for power outages, For power outage application benefits, w 16 ~w 21 is the weight of each factor after the operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned work construction, and The threshold for qualified operation quality is 0.7. When 0.7≤e m ≤1, the work quality meets the expected goal; when 0.5≤e m <0.7, the responsible unit must immediately conduct self-inspection; when 0.3≤e m <0.5, the competent department needs to intervene to conduct spot checks on construction quality; when e m <0.3, the responsible leader needs to personally participate in strengthening construction quality control and quality inspection and acceptance of equipment after commissioning.

[0082] Different equipment types or power supply systems can adjust weights according to specific needs. For example, if the focus is on short-term fault improvement, increase w 17 If long-term power supply stability is more important, increase the weight w 18 、w 19 、w 20 ; The weight can be determined through historical data analysis to make the planned maintenance quality evaluation consistent with the actual situation.

[0083] The technical parameters in formula (3) are further explained as follows.

[0084] Fault improvement rate: Among them F after F is the equipment failure rate per unit time before maintenance, in times / year. before The equipment failure rate per unit time after maintenance, measured in times / year, reflects the improvement in power supply reliability due to maintenance. A larger value indicates a better failure reduction effect. After maintenance, this value is calculated by recording the total number of equipment failures within a fixed period. It is a core indicator for evaluating maintenance effectiveness.

[0085] Time between first failures: Where T first T is the time interval between the first failure after maintenance, in days or hours. baseline The historical average time between failures for similar equipment, expressed in days or hours. The time between failures is the interval between equipment maintenance and the first failure. This indicator reflects the short-term stability of equipment operation.

[0086] Improvement rate of mean time between failures: Where T avg_before T is the average time between equipment failures before maintenance, in days or hours. avg_after The mean time between failures (MTBF) is the average time between failures after maintenance, expressed in days or hours. This value represents the time between failures within a specified period and reflects the long-term reliability of the equipment. Higher values ​​indicate greater improvements in reliability. The MTBF before and after maintenance is calculated on an annual or quarterly basis, and the improvement in MTBF is used to assess the effectiveness of maintenance strategies.

[0087] Power outage time reduction rate: Among them S before The total duration of power outage caused by the equipment before maintenance, in hours, S afterThis is the total duration of power outages caused by the equipment after the repair, measured in hours. This metric reflects the repair's contribution to power supply reliability, with higher values ​​indicating shorter outages. The requirement is that after the equipment repair, system outages caused by the equipment are reduced by at least 30%, and the average user outage duration is reduced by at least 40%. If this target is met or exceeded, the repair is considered to have significantly reduced outage duration.

[0088] Reduction rate of power outages: where N before is the number of power outages within a certain period of time before maintenance. For example, the period is one year, N after This is the number of power outages within a certain period after maintenance, for example, a year. This indicator reflects the maintenance's impact on reducing the incidence of power outages. Compare the number of power outages within a certain period, for example, a year, before and after maintenance. If the number of power outages decreases by more than 50%, the maintenance is considered to have been effective in reducing the number of outages and effectively improving power supply reliability.

[0089] Power outage application benefits: It aims to measure the benefits of improving power supply reliability brought about by each unit of power outage cost during the implementation of the power grid equipment maintenance plan. It comprehensively considers the changes in power supply reliability before and after the maintenance and the number of households affected by the power outage due to the maintenance, reflecting the input-output efficiency of the maintenance plan in improving power supply reliability. outage is the average power outage time of the power grid, T count is the statistical period, and the power supply reliability rate before maintenance is After maintenance, it is R2. For n users, the power outage time of user i is t i , the unit is hours, then Power outage application benefits

[0090] When the post-assignment quality score is low, it will be handled to different degrees as follows.

[0091] Generally poor situation, 0.5≤e m <0.7: The responsible unit must immediately conduct a self-inspection. A comprehensive review of the entire operational process should be conducted, focusing on construction process execution, equipment installation and commissioning, and document organization and archiving. Construction records should be carefully reviewed to ensure strict adherence to standard procedures, including ensuring the tightness of equipment connections and the compliance of cable routing. Pre-commissioning reports should be reviewed to confirm that all parameters are within normal ranges. As-built documentation should be reviewed to ensure that it is complete and consistent with actual construction conditions. Through this self-inspection, a detailed list of issues should be compiled, and a rectification plan should be developed, clearly identifying responsible individuals and deadlines to ensure timely resolution.

[0092] In the worst case, 0.3≤e m<0.5: The competent authorities should intervene to conduct spot checks on construction quality. Key technical personnel should be assigned to form spot check teams to conduct spot checks on key construction projects and critical equipment. On one hand, they should conduct on-site inspections of equipment operating conditions and use specialized testing equipment to verify performance, such as transformer winding resistance and insulation performance, to ensure compliance with requirements. On the other hand, they should review the construction unit's quality control system, including quality inspection records and personnel training files. For any issues identified during spot checks, prompt rectification notices should be issued, requiring the responsible unit to rectify the problem within a specified timeframe. Follow-up inspections should be conducted to urge the responsible unit to improve construction quality.

[0093] Especially in the worst case, m <0.3: Supervisors must personally participate in strengthening construction quality control and post-operation quality inspection and acceptance. Supervisors should visit the construction site and comprehensively oversee construction organization and management, as well as quality supervision mechanisms. They should convene special meetings on construction quality to coordinate resources and resolve construction challenges. After the equipment is operational, strict quality inspection and acceptance procedures should be implemented, with each key piece of equipment and important systems individually inspected and accepted to ensure stable operation and performance compliance. Responsible units and individuals should be held accountable, urged to reflect deeply, and comprehensively improve construction quality and management.

[0094] Step S4: Evaluate the overall quality of the job to obtain the overall quality score Q m , when the overall quality score of the job is Q m Satisfy the conditions, Q m ≥0.9, excellent; 0.8≤Q m <0.9, good; 0.6≤Q m <0.8, qualified; Q m <0.6, unqualified, details are as follows.

[0095] Phase 4: Overall quality evaluation of the assignment.

[0096] The establishment of a planning work quality evaluation index centered on the reliability system platform runs through the three stages before planned maintenance, during the construction process, and after planned maintenance, comprehensively covering the entire process from plan formulation to execution results, and systematically solving the problems of resource waste in planned maintenance and low transparency in the construction process.

[0097] Overall quality rating of the assignment:

[0098] Q m =(I m +d m +e m ) / 3 Formula (4)

[0099] In formula (4), Q m Rate the overall quality of the assignment, I mComprehensive score for the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, d m Score the construction process during the operation, e m Score the quality of the assignment after the assignment. The threshold for excellent overall assignment quality is 0.9. m ≥0.9, excellent; when 0.8≤Q m <0.9, good; when 0.6≤Q m <0.8, qualified; when Q m <0.6, unqualified.

[0100] The technical parameters in formula (4) are further explained as follows.

[0101] Excellent file, Q m ≥0.9: Planning at this level demonstrated excellent performance at every stage. Pre-outage necessity assessments were accurate, fully considering factors such as equipment health, power supply reliability, and load forecasts. During the outage, maintenance work was high-quality, fast, and efficient, with tasks completed on time and minimal delays. After the outage, equipment failure rates were significantly reduced, significantly improving power supply reliability. This type of planning should be summarized and replicated to provide a reference for other projects.

[0102] Good gear, 0.8≤Q m <0.9: Overall performance is good, but some areas for improvement remain. Minor deficiencies may exist in certain indicators, such as slightly exceeding planned duration or insufficient improvement in power supply reliability indicators after the operation. These deficiencies should be analyzed to identify the causes and develop corrective measures to further enhance the quality of planning.

[0103] Qualified grade, 0.6≤Q m <0.8: Meets basic requirements, but with significant deficiencies in several areas. For example, pre-outage necessity assessments were insufficient, a certain percentage of tasks were delayed or exceeded during the operation, and the equipment failure rate did not decrease significantly after the operation. This type of planning requires a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of issues at each stage, strengthened management and oversight, and optimized workflows and methods to ensure that subsequent work meets even higher standards.

[0104] Unqualified file, Q m <0.6: The planning work is seriously flawed, significantly negatively impacting power supply reliability. This could be due to poor decision-making before the power outage, resulting in unnecessary outages; poor construction quality and significant delays during the operation; or no improvement or even deterioration in equipment operating conditions after the operation. For substandard planning work, a special investigation should be immediately conducted to investigate those responsible, develop detailed corrective plans, and continuously monitor the effectiveness of these corrective actions to prevent similar issues from recurring.

[0105] In summary, the technical problem to be solved by the technical solution of this application is to more reasonably arrange the maintenance plan of distribution network equipment. First, the health status and development trends of the equipment are taken into consideration when making maintenance decisions, making the maintenance more proactive, targeted, and necessary. Second, the reliability platform can achieve full visualization of the construction process through online monitoring and dynamic data updates. With the help of the execution progress comparison function provided by the platform, progress deviations can be quickly identified, and resource investment can be adjusted through the early warning mechanism to ensure that the construction plan is completed on time. Finally, the maintenance work is evaluated afterward, the equipment maintenance time is reasonably extended, and ineffective maintenance is avoided, thereby reducing capital costs for enterprises and improving power supply reliability. That is, through pre-operation necessity evaluation, planned maintenance construction process evaluation, and post-operation operation quality evaluation, long-term tracking and evaluation of equipment operating performance and power supply reliability are carried out to comprehensively and accurately evaluate the actual effect of the maintenance work.

[0106] Example 2:

[0107] The present invention discloses a method for evaluating a planned work operation for improving power supply reliability, comprising the following steps:

[0108] Step S1': Obtaining the comprehensive score I of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation m , when the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity is I m If the threshold is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold, the maintenance plan will be arranged first.

[0109] Step S2': Obtain construction process score d m , when the construction process score d m If the construction process is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold, the construction process during the power outage operation is qualified.

[0110] Step S3': Get the homework quality score e m , when the homework quality score e m Greater than or equal to the job quality qualification threshold, the job quality meets the expected goals.

[0111] Step S4': Comprehensively score the necessity of equipment maintenance m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating m The weighted average is used to obtain the overall quality score Q of the assignment. m , when the overall quality score of the job is Q m If the value is greater than or equal to the excellent threshold for overall job quality, the overall job quality is excellent.

[0112] In Example 2, the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity is obtained. m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating mThe algorithms all adopt existing methods, and each corresponding indicator and each threshold adopted can be adaptively selected and adjusted as needed, and the similarities are not repeated here.

[0113] Since the existing technical solutions only consider the necessity evaluation before the operation, and have never considered the combination of the planned maintenance and construction process evaluation, there are technical problems such as unreasonable distribution network equipment maintenance plans, low efficiency of distribution network equipment maintenance plans, and insufficient tracking and evaluation of the long-term operating performance and power supply reliability of the equipment. Compared with the existing technology, this application takes a weighted average of the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity, the construction process score, and the operation quality score to obtain the overall quality score of the operation, and then evaluates the overall quality of the operation, making the distribution network equipment maintenance plan more reasonable, the distribution network equipment maintenance plan more efficient, and conducting long-term tracking and evaluation of equipment operating performance and power supply reliability, so as to more comprehensively and accurately evaluate the actual effect of the maintenance work.

[0114] Example 3:

[0115] The present invention discloses a method for evaluating a planned work operation for improving power supply reliability, comprising the following steps:

[0116] Step S1”: Obtain the comprehensive score I of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation m , when the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity is I m If the threshold is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold, the maintenance plan will be arranged first.

[0117] Step S2": Obtain construction process score d m , when the construction process score d m If the construction process is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold, the construction process during the power outage operation is qualified.

[0118] Step S3”: Get the homework quality score e m , when the homework quality score e m Greater than or equal to the job quality qualification threshold, the job quality meets the expected goals.

[0119] Step S4”: Comprehensively score the necessity of equipment maintenance m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating m The weighted average is used to obtain the overall quality score Q of the assignment. m , when the overall quality score of the job is Q m If the value is greater than or equal to the excellent threshold for overall job quality, the overall job quality is excellent.

[0120] The steps in Example 3 differ from those in Example 1 in that:

[0121] In step S1", as needed, ten secondary indicators, including years of operation, risk of family defects, heavy overload conditions, ability to eliminate faults under power, fault frequency, fault impact range, system outage time impact rate, power supply gap ratio during maintenance period, equipment remaining capacity ratio, and maintenance conditions based on reliability, may be deleted or selected. For example, only ten of these indicators may be retained and weights may be adaptively assigned. The similarities are not repeated here.

[0122] In step S2, you can delete or select from the five secondary indicators, including the proportion of defect elimination, equipment replacement ratio, construction efficiency, proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, and plan execution deviation rate, as needed. For example, only four of the indicators can be retained and weights can be adaptively assigned. The similarities are not repeated here.

[0123] In step S3', the six secondary indicators, namely, fault improvement rate, first fault interval duration, average fault interval duration improvement rate, power outage time reduction rate, power outage number reduction rate, and power outage application benefit, may be deleted and selected as needed. For example, only five indicators may be retained and weights may be adaptively assigned. The similarities are not repeated here.

[0124] In step S4", the necessity of equipment maintenance can be comprehensively scored as needed. m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating m The weights are adaptively adjusted, and the weight values ​​are increased or decreased as needed. The similarities are not repeated here.

[0125] The secondary indicators used in this application are relatively reasonable and can be appropriately deleted according to the needs of use. Compared with the existing technology, this application conducts long-term tracking and evaluation of equipment operating performance and power supply reliability, and more comprehensively and accurately evaluates the actual effect of maintenance work.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating planned work operations for improving power supply reliability, characterized by: The steps include: Step S1: Obtaining a comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation I m , when the comprehensive score of equipment maintenance necessity is I m If the value is greater than or equal to the equipment maintenance threshold, the maintenance plan will be arranged first; Step S2: Obtain construction process score d m , when the construction process score d m If the value is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold of the construction process, the construction process during the power outage operation is qualified; Step S3: Obtain the post-operation operation quality score e m , when the homework quality score e m is greater than or equal to the qualified threshold of operation quality, and the operation quality meets the expected goal; Step S4: The comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance I m , Construction process score d m and homework quality rating m The weighted average is used to obtain the overall quality score Q of the assignment. m , when the overall quality score of the job is Q m If the value is greater than or equal to the excellent threshold for overall job quality, the overall job quality is excellent.

2. A method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S1, when the equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score I m If the power level is below the equipment maintenance threshold, the planned work content will be readjusted, including the analysis of the rationality of the power outage plan balance and the application review of power transfer and power protection measures.

3. The method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, the construction process qualification threshold is 0.7, when 0.7≤d m ≤1, the construction process is qualified during power outage operation; when 0.5≤d m <0.7, the responsible department shall carry out self-inspection of the maintenance plan; when 0.3≤d m <0.5, relevant professional departments will participate in the spot check during the construction process; when d m <0.3, the responsible leader personally participates in the supervision work.

4. A method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, the threshold value of the qualified operation quality is 0.7, when 0.7≤e m ≤1, the work quality meets the expected goal; when 0.5≤e m <0.7, the responsible unit shall conduct self-inspection; when 0.3≤e m <0.5, the competent department will intervene to conduct spot checks on construction quality; when e m <0.3, the responsible leader personally participates in strengthening construction quality control and quality inspection and acceptance of equipment after commissioning.

5. The method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S4, the threshold value of the overall quality of the job is 0.

9. m ≥0.9, the overall quality of the work is excellent; when 0.8≤Q m <0.9, the overall quality of the work is good; when 0.6≤Q m <0.8, the overall quality of the operation is qualified; when Q m <0.6, the overall quality of the work is unqualified.

6. A method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S1, the equipment maintenance necessity comprehensive score I m According to formula (1), I m = w1k y + w2k d + w3k l + w4k c + w5k f + w6k r + w7C S + w8G S + w9(1 - R c ) - w 10 ΔR Equation (1) In formula (1), I m is the comprehensive score of the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, w1 is the weight of the years of operation, k y is the operation period, w2 is the weight of family defect risk, k d is the risk of familial defects, w3 is the weight of severe overload, k l is a heavy overload condition, w4 is the weight of whether the fault can be eliminated under power, k c is whether the fault can be eliminated under power, w5 is the weight of the fault frequency rate, k f is the fault frequency rate, w6 is the weight of the fault impact range, k r is the fault impact range, w7 is the weight of the system power outage time impact rate, C S is the system outage time impact rate, w8 is the weight of the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, G S is the power supply gap ratio during the maintenance period, w9 is the weight of the equipment remaining capacity ratio, R c is the ratio of remaining capacity of the equipment, w 10 is the weight of the maintenance condition based on the reliability rate, ΔR is the maintenance condition based on the reliability rate; w1~w 10 is the weight of each factor before the power outage operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the importance of each factor on the power supply reliability of the equipment, and 7. A method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, the construction process score d m According to formula (2), In formula (2), d m Score the construction process in the job, w 11 is the weight of the proportion of defect elimination, is the proportion of defect elimination, w 12 is the weight of the equipment replacement ratio, is the equipment replacement ratio, w 13 is the weight of construction efficiency, is the construction efficiency, w 14 is the weight of the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, O8 is the proportion of tasks exceeding 8 hours, w 15 is the weight of the plan execution deviation rate, D p is the plan execution deviation rate; w 11 ~w 15 is the weight of each factor in the construction process, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned construction work, and 8. The method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, the job quality score e m According to formula (3), In formula (3), e m Score the quality of the homework after the assignment, w 16 is the weight of the fault improvement rate, is the failure improvement rate, w 17 is the weight of the first failure interval, is the first failure interval length, w 18 is the weight of the improvement rate of the mean time between failures, is the improvement rate of mean time between failures, w 19 is the weight of the power outage time reduction rate, is the power outage time reduction rate, w 20 is the weight of the power outage reduction rate, is the power outage reduction rate, w 21 Applying benefit weights for power outages, For power outage application benefits, w 16 ~w 21 is the weight of each factor after the operation, and the value range is set between 0 and 1 according to the degree of influence of each factor on the planned work construction, and 9. The method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S4, the overall quality score of the job is calculated according to formula (4): Q m =(I m +d m +e m ) / 3 Equation (4) In formula (4), Q m Rate the overall quality of the assignment, I m Comprehensive score for the necessity of equipment maintenance before power outage operation, d m Score the construction process during the operation, e m Grade the quality of the assignment after the assignment.

10. A method for evaluating planned work for improving power supply reliability according to any one of claims 1 to 9, characterized in that: In step S1, the equipment maintenance threshold is 0.7.

Images